Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering theworld's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientic evidence.Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken aprominent and inuential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejectionof climate science. Paralleling previous work, we nd that endorsement of a laissez-faireconception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 betweenlatent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of otherestablished scientic ndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smokingcauses lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracytheories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moonlanding) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scienticndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This providesempirical conrmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes tohttp://websites.psyc...eConspiracy.pdf

Your posting of this abstract for this paper really only serves to reinforce the alarming decline in science today. It illustrates two points: the dismally poor standards currently prevalent in some branches of science; and your own inability to distinguish ideology from science, or conduct even elementary analysis.

Had you bothered to do even a cursory review of the Lewandowsky paper you would have discovered a number of very disturbing things:

The paper was peer reviewed and scheduled for publication in September.

Prior to publication, in July, the author engaged in “publication by press release” through “The Guardian” newspaper.

Real scientists reviewed the paper and found it to be politically motivated and riddled with methodological, statistical and scientific errors.

As a result of the abysmally poor quality of this paper, it has been subject to universal ridicule and contempt.

Given that this paper was subject to “peer review”, there has been universal condemnation of the “peers” and questions regarding both their competence and motivation.

In light of the demonstrable incompetence of the author, questions are now being asked as to how he was awarded a PhD in the first place, and how he has been able to maintain a faculty position at the University of Western Australia.

Currently a review is being conducted of the author’s previous publications with a view to determining whether or not they should be retracted due to incompetence or fraud.

The U of WA is currently in damage control while attempting to paper over its culpability in having such an incompetent faculty member on its payroll.

The issue of his competence and the university’s culpability has been put on the agenda for a formal governance review at the U of WA.

The paper has been withdrawn from publication, and has been removed from the publication schedule.

In future, I suggest that rather than embarrass yourself even more by posting more garbage, you make at least a cursory attempt at examining the facts and reviewing the science before posting.

Oh I know what you mean by real scientists. They have names such as Watts, Joanne Nova...So far this is the only review I can find that isn't written by a climate change denier http://www.theregist...ve_denail_fury/

Upon searching further I found this too. People reading this thread may find this illuminating, bit I doubt you will.

IF the world's conspiratorial blogosphere was broken up into food items on a wedding buffet table, then an eclectic array of plate-fillers would surely be on offer.There would be canapés topped with faked moon landings and hors d'oeuvres of Government-backed plots to assassinate civil rights leaders.Sandwich fillings would come from US military staff at Roswell in New Mexico (cheese and alien, anyone?). The alcoholic punch would be of the same vintage as that which the British Royal family gave Princess Diana's chauffeur, as part of their plot to kill her. All of the catering would be provided by the New World Order.Then there's the salad of human-caused climate change being a hoax, with the world's climate scientists, national academies and the declining Arctic sea-ice all in on the conspiracy.

Let me give you some advice. When you try too counter an opposing position, statements that read like opinions don't count at all. On another forum I am debating another climate change denier and I swear to God you two are two peas in a pod.

I'm in a good mood and I want you to be also that's why I'm posting this just for youHigh-Arctic heat tops 1,800-year high"The Medieval Warm Period was not as uniformly warm as we once thought—we can start calling it the Medieval Period again," said the study's lead author, William D'Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Our record indicates that recent summer temperatures on Svalbard are greater than even the warmest periods at that time."

I'm in a good mood and I want you to be also that's why I'm posting this just for you

High-Arctic heat tops 1,800-year high
"The Medieval Warm Period was not as uniformly warm as we once thought—we can start calling it the Medieval Period again," said the study's lead author, William D'Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Our record indicates that recent summer temperatures on Svalbard are greater than even the warmest periods at that time."

The point is not to have a competition over which blog links most support whose viewpoint; the point is to behave like a scientist and investigate the facts for yourself. This would have required that you read the Lewandowsky paper, analyse it, understand the method and understand the results.

Clearly, you have done none of these things.

Had you done so, you would have learned that the paper was conceived as a political exercise with a preconceived ideological objective; then the study was structured to ensure that the results would support the original objective.

However, it turns out that Lewandowsky made such an incompetent hash of this, that even the most casual observers have found it to be a laughable embarrassment.

This study would have received a failing grade in a grade school science fair; it says a lot that Lewandowski is a faculty member at the University of Western Australia.

It says even more that the Australian taxpayer paid $1,700,000 for this “peer reviewed scientific study”.

The point is not to have a competition over which blog links most support whose viewpoint; the point is to behave like a scientist and investigate the facts for yourself. This would have required that you read the Lewandowsky paper, analyse it, understand the method and understand the results.

Clearly, you have done none of these things.

Had you done so, you would have learned that the paper was conceived as a political exercise with a preconceived ideological objective; then the study was structured to ensure that the results would support the original objective.

However, it turns out that Lewandowsky made such an incompetent hash of this, that even the most casual observers have found it to be a laughable embarrassment.

This study would have received a failing grade in a grade school science fair; it says a lot that Lewandowski is a faculty member at the University of Western Australia.

It says even more that the Australian taxpayer paid $1,700,000 for this “peer reviewed scientific study”.

So you again write stuff without citations. Inject personal evaluations. You must think we should just take your words for it. And you disparage what appears to be a university of renown because Lewandowski is a faculty member.http://en.wikipedia....stern_Australia

Look my Canadian friend you are neither an expert or authority on climate change. What you are though, is someone that is opposed to any thought humans have through their activities any ability to influence the climate. The climate is changing and all the evidence which gets more convincing nearly everyday is pointing that these changes are being caused by us.

The point is not to have a competition over which blog links most support whose viewpoint; the point is to behave like a scientist and investigate the facts for yourself. This would have required that you read the Lewandowsky paper, analyse it, understand the method and understand the results.

Clearly, you have done none of these things.

Had you done so, you would have learned that the paper was conceived as a political exercise with a preconceived ideological objective; then the study was structured to ensure that the results would support the original objective.

However, it turns out that Lewandowsky made such an incompetent hash of this, that even the most casual observers have found it to be a laughable embarrassment.

This study would have received a failing grade in a grade school science fair; it says a lot that Lewandowski is a faculty member at the University of Western Australia.

It says even more that the Australian taxpayer paid $1,700,000 for this “peer reviewed scientific study”.

So you again write stuff without citations. Inject personal evaluations. You must think we should just take your words for it. And you disparage what appears to be a university of renown because Lewandowski is a faculty member.http://en.wikipedia....stern_Australia

Look my Canadian friend you are neither an expert or authority on climate change. What you are though, is someone that is opposed to any thought humans have through their activities any ability to influence the climate. The climate is changing and all the evidence which gets more convincing nearly everyday is pointing that these changes are being caused by us.

Which part of: read the Lewandowsky paper, analyse it, understand it, and draw your own conclusions do you need explained?